Sign in / up

back to article Bloke cuffed for blowing low-flying camera drone to bits with shotgun

A father of two girls didn't take too kindly to a camera-equipped quadrocopter hovering over his house and snooping on his kids – so he blasted it out of the sky. Now he's facing charges of first-degree criminal mischief and wanton endangerment. William Merideth, 47, was relaxing at his home in Hillview, Kentucky, US, on …

COMMENTS

Post your comment
House rules Send corrections
Add to 'My topics' unstar *

Page:

          1. Steve Todd
            Reply Icon
            FAIL

            Re: Yeah...

            The drone was looking under eves and similar areas which wouldn't be visible to the above. Photographing someone on their private property, from within the property boundaries and without permission is definitely covered by U.S. Case law.

            1 1 Reply
            1. Anonymous Coward
              Reply Icon
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: Yeah...

              > The drone was looking under eves

              Really? I'm a bit incredulous about that claim ... unless Eve was his daughter's name.

              Are you sure the guys who came to claim the 'drone' didn't look look suspiciously Arabic too?

              0 1 Reply
            2. TheVogon
              Reply Icon

              Re: Yeah...

              "Photographing someone on their private property, from within the property boundaries and without permission"

              The drone was apparently ~ 30m above the property, so not on the property, or within any conventional boundaries, so unless it was restricted airspace presumably it was perfectly legal.

              0 1 Reply
        2. d3vy
          Reply Icon

          Re: Yeah...

          "he fired bird shot at it. By the time that comes down it doesn't present a risk of injury to people in the street."

          Fair point but I selected the word debris on purpose because the shot wasn't the only thing falling out the sky was it?

          0 2 Reply
      2. Speltier
        Reply Icon

        Re: Yeah...

        There is an airspace height that is your property, varying by location, country, and is usually kind of vague. You do not own a sector of the Universe extending from the core of the planet out to "infinity" (not even sovereign nations own that much, otherwise countries could not spy on each other from "space").

        So, how much do you own, and if the perp trespasses can you blast him out of the sky?

        Since airplanes can fly overhead, and Google can snap your pix from "up there", there is obviously some ceiling value where the airspace becomes public. The police think that they can spy from anywhere "outside your property" but it isn't clear what the airspace is-- obviously a few feet is unreasonable or there would be police drones hovering outside people's windows and dropping into open atriums to buzz around.

        Might be a while before case law catches up. You can't win, make the ceiling 100M and a big honking drone with gimbal mount image stabilized 1000mm will be hovering up there looking at your pores while you engage in the early stages of meatbag fabrication...

        4 1 Reply
        1. d3vy
          Reply Icon

          Re: Yeah...

          I was joking about my property extending into space - I didnt (and still don't) know how much of the area above and below my house is mine.

          I don't think the wife is going to like it but from now on I'm definitely referring to it as Meatbag fabrication... Awesome!

          0 0 Reply
      3. Someone Else Silver badge
        Reply Icon
        Thumb Up

        @d3vy -- Re: Yeah...

        * It wasn't on his property it was over it (Interesting does my property extend into space vertically? How much of the ground under my house do I own?)

        Good question. IIRC from my real estate class (for the state of Illinois, USA) that a property owner owns the plot of land, and the earth underneath the plot of land down to the core of the earth, and the airspace above the plot of land . The land owner may lease the rights (e.g. mineral rights, clearances, etc.) to 3rd parties. A drone that is hovering in the landowner's airspace can well be said to be trespassing.

        Now, my class was about a decade ago, and things may have changed in IL. Laws may be different in other states, so YMMV. That said, good on Mr. Meredith for drawing a line in the sand (figuratively...I guess he drew it in the air) over which flight kiddies (and certain intrusive American Corporations) will cross at their own peril.

        7 0 Reply
        1. Phuq Witt
          Reply Icon
          Holmes

          Core Values

          "...IIRC from my real estate class (for the state of Illinois, USA) that a property owner owns the plot of land, and the earth underneath the plot of land down to the core of the earth..."

          That would be a bugger to work out as, obviously by the time you reach the Earth's core your plot of land would have to have diminished in size to a single point. Now who's the smart boy or girl who's going to work out a formula for calculating the decrease in size of your plot of land as a function of subterranean depth?

          0 1 Reply
        2. CommodorePet
          Reply Icon

          Re: @d3vy -- Yeah...

          Here in California, the mineral and oil/petroleum rights to the land under your property were sold decades before the land was parcelled out for individual houses. I forget the exact depth, but there is a very definite edge to what is yours.

          0 0 Reply
      4. Steve Knox
        Reply Icon
        Headmaster

        Re: Yeah...

        Ariel photography has been popular for a long time, its not illegal

        Potentially true, but you might get a visit from Disney's copyright lawyers, or get sent to the doghouse by the spouse, depending on which Ariel you're talking about photographing...

        4 0 Reply
        1. Anonymous Coward
          Reply Icon
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Yeah...

          I once had a girlfriend called Ariel. No one ever arrested me for taking pictures of her.

          0 0 Reply
    2. Fink-Nottle
      Reply Icon

      Re: Yeah...

      > I'm sorry but what the heck was the person flying the drone doing in the first place? Flying low through peoples gardens with a camera attached?

      Ars Technica states that the drone had been hovering at 200 ft for around 20 seconds when it was shot down. The pertinent question is, what the heck was the shooter doing?

      0 3 Reply
  2. Mark 85

    He should go free...

    I believe that with a 6-foot tall (~2m) privacy fence there is an expectation of privacy. It it's was within range of the shotgun (50 yards/50m maybe?) then yes, it's too low. Then there's the idiots who decided to go hassle the guy with the gun... They did do the right thing (for some value of right) by calling the cops instead of trying to deal with him. But this also gives the courts a chance to intervene and lay out the interpretation of the law.

    If he loses, then I guess we can expect these intrusions at the will of the owner without regard for our safety or privacy.

    30 5 Reply
    1. rh587
      Reply Icon

      Re: He should go free...

      I expect him to lose and for one very simple reason.

      In the UK, anyone engaging in shooting activities is legally obliged to ensure that any shots fired do not leave the boundaries of the land over which you have permission to shoot, nor that you endanger another individual. Shooting over someone else's land even form your own land is considered akin to trespassing on their land (or more specific, armed trespass since you're carrying a firearm - armed trespass being a criminal matter, not civil like regular trespass).

      I doubt America has such a law, however it seems probable that some or all of the shot will have landed outside of his back garden. It may have landed in his neighbour's back garden. He would not have able to see if there was anybody in that garden because of the aforementioned two metre privacy fence (which is opaque in BOTH directions!).

      Therefore he will be bang to rights for reckless endangerment.

      How peeved would you be if you or your child were peppered with buckshot because the guy next door decided to take potshots at a drone?

      10 19 Reply
      1. itzman
        Reply Icon

        Re: He should go free...

        "it seems probable that some or all of the shot will have landed outside of his back garden"

        Not if he shot straight up, as he claimed.

        Shotguns dont have much carry at all.

        200m maybe at 45 degrees.

        if he had a reasonably large garden, very unlikely a high angle shot would have gone anywhere else.

        11 5 Reply
        1. Anonymous Coward
          Reply Icon
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: He should go free...

          Also, birdshot decelerates quickly and generally won't hurt anything on the way down... no more than small hail. Less dangerous than drones, for sure.

          The cops charged the guy with firing a gun inside city limits - which would be justified in a clear self-defense situation - not with shooting the drone. Perhaps the drone operators will face charges as well, if the cops can find a law they broke. If not, expect a new law.

          6 1 Reply
        2. rh587
          Reply Icon

          Re: He should go free...

          "Not if he shot straight up, as he claimed."

          Well he's not going to claim anything else... he's been charged with wanton endangerment - he's not going to say anything to the media that might prejudice his position!

          Watching the videos, he doesn't have a huge back yard. Bigger than a lot of Brit's, but it looked like his neighbour's fence was only a couple of metres away. Unless his shot was absolutely vertical, some shot will almost certainly drift across one boundary or another.

          Turns out he used bird shot, which shouldn't cause too much problem if it's only falling under gravity and has no appreciable x-component, which it won't if it was a largely vertical shot, not shooting towards his boundary or anything.

          "Nonsense. Please get some perspective. While I agree Guns should be controlled, I'm also against this tendency to interpret the risk associated with every action is determined by the media's attitude towards the tool/thing used while the action is taken."

          He's been charged with wanton endangerment. By the Police, not the media. May not go anywhere, but clearly there's a basic case to be examined.

          1 0 Reply
      2. SuccessCase
        Reply Icon

        Re: He should go free...

        "Therefore he will be bang to rights for reckless endangerment."

        Nonsense. Please get some perspective. While I agree Guns should be controlled, I'm also against this tendency to interpret the risk associated with every action is determined by the media's attitude towards the tool/thing used while the action is taken. If you fire a shotgun up into the air, the chance of injury of anyone else is as close to zero as you can get. The only way you could get hurt by buckshot is if you are looking up into the air with your eyes open just at the moment a bit of buckshot falls down into your eye. If shot coming down in a neighbours garden is reckless endangerment, firing rockets up into the air on fireworks night where the chance of going off course, or substantial plastic rocket cap, or a partially unexploded or burning/smouldering material coming down from what is essentially an imprecise ballistic explosive/incendiary device, is many, many times greater - yet few of us are bothered by that.

        33 2 Reply
        1. Muscleguy
          Reply Icon

          Re: He should go free...

          Not to mention that staring into the sky without a blink reflex puts your eyes in danger of excretory masses falling from cloacas of the feathered dinosauria that frequent the skies.

          1 0 Reply
        2. Bakana
          Reply Icon

          Re: He should go free...

          I believe that most of those "Harmless Activities" you referred to (The Various types of Fireworks) actually ARE Illegal in most cities in the USA.

          Because, contrary to what you stated, people have Died or been maimed for life by just those sorts of activities.

          And, in most states, if you fire a weapon even into the Air, you CAN be charged with Reckless Endangerment because, Guess What? People get Killed every Year by shots "Fired Into the Air".

          Most of the Killers are never Identified, but when a Shooter IS Identified as having "Fired int the Air", most jurisdictions DO tend to take it seriously.

          .

          1 1 Reply
      3. Dr_N
        Reply Icon

        Re: He should go free...

        "In the UK, anyone engaging in shooting activities is legally obliged to ensure that any shots fired do not leave the boundaries of the land over which you have permission to shoot, nor that you endanger another individual."

        Ha ha. That's the UK. or "Hobbiton" as it's know to the rest of the world.

        e.g. In France "hunters" are allowed to chase and kill virtually anything they please, on any property.

        Even public land.

        6 16 Reply
        1. Just Enough
          Reply Icon
          FAIL

          Re: He should go free...

          "e.g. In France "hunters" are allowed to chase and kill virtually anything they please, on any property."

          Bollocks. This is a myth. I suggest you go re-read the restrictions of "Loi Verdeille".

          8 1 Reply
          1. Dr_N
            Reply Icon

            Re: He should go free...

            'Bollocks. This is a myth. I suggest you go re-read the restrictions of "Loi Verdeille".'

            Hunters can go anywhere if an animal is said to be "blessé mortellement".

            And you only have to go walking anywhere in France to cross a bunch of drunken hunters ready to fire a warning shot your way whilst they are enjoying their post-drink wandering with a loaded weapon.

            Why do you think French garde du chasse carry sidearms and not rifles/shotguns? It's not to protect themselves from 4 legged animals....

            2 0 Reply
        2. TheVogon
          Reply Icon

          Re: He should go free...

          "That's the UK. or "Hobbiton" as it's know to the rest of the world."

          "the rest of the world" meaning the colonies only? The average American's grasp of global geography presumably not able to differentiate between the UK and New Zealand...

          12 7 Reply
          1. Stevie
            Reply Icon

            Re: He should go free...

            only? The average American's grasp of global geography presumably not able to differentiate between the UK and New Zealand...

            As is the tenuous grasp of how law is made in the U.S. by UK Reg readers. Gun restrictions are enacted by States, not by "America".

            10 3 Reply
            1. Anonymous Coward
              Reply Icon
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: He should go free...

              As is the tenuous grasp of how law is made in the U.S. by UK Reg readers. Gun restrictions are enacted by States, not by "America".

              Apart from, y'know, the federal ones. Which are few compared to State/County/City ordinances, but exist nonetheless.

              And laws like wanton endangerment are not firearm restrictions anyway. They're catch-alls that can apply to anything from making explosives in your back garden to firing guns into the air to doing something else stupid.

              4 0 Reply
              1. Stevie
                Reply Icon

                Re: Apart from, y'know, the federal ones.

                But the context of the discussion was about the carrying and use of the gun in his garden, a matter which is firmly ensconced in the local and state firearms laws.

                The reason there is so much successful resistance to "gun control" is, in large part, because it is being attempted at the Federal level. This is also at the heart of attempts to curtail the Affordable Healthcare Act.

                A war was once fought using the Federal usurpation of States' rights as the battle cry. Some are still fighting that war.

                1 0 Reply
            2. TheVogon
              Reply Icon

              Re: He should go free...

              "Gun restrictions are enacted by States, not by "America"."

              Clearly that's part of your gun problem then. You won't ever get rid of them and return to a civilised situation without proper universal control of guns.

              See http://www.humanosphere.org/science/2014/03/visualizing-gun-deaths-comparing-the-u-s-to-rest-of-the-world/ for some illustrations of just how far behind the rest of the civilised world the USA is.

              Here in the UK you can have guns, but they have to be licenced, registered and stored in a locked steel cabinet when not in use, and the Police visit and check all registered guns are all accounted for and securely stored at least once a year...

              0 2 Reply
              1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                Reply Icon
                Stop

                Re: TheVogon Re: He should go free...

                ".....Here in the UK you can have guns, but they have to be licenced, registered and stored in a locked steel cabinet when not in use, and the Police visit and check all registered guns are all accounted for and securely stored at least once a year..." And it has had zero effect on the levels of UK gun crime. Indeed, banning legal handguns just removed handguns from law-abiding citizens, it didn't bother the criminals one bit as they didn't care about laws (kinda why they are criminals in the first place - duh!).

                0 0 Reply
        3. Jediben
          Reply Icon

          Re: He should go free...

          But when it comes to keeping illegals out of a tunnel you suddenly aren't so keen to chase anything, eh Jacques?

          10 0 Reply
        4. rh587
          Reply Icon

          Re: He should go free...

          "e.g. In France "hunters" are allowed to chase and kill virtually anything they please, on any property."

          Wrong. Punishment for hunting on private land in France without permission is up to 1 year in prison and a €15,000 fine.

          Some hunting clubs will organise communal associations (ACCA - Association Communale de Chasse Agréée), whereby any member can hunt across any land within the commune (as opposed to the UK for instance where an individual deals with landowners on an individual basis to get permission to shoot).

          This does not by any means cover all land in France, nor does it happen in all parts of France. They may have limited rights to chase a wounded animal for the coup de gras (though they should probably have practiced their fieldcraft a bit more, got a bit closer and done the job properly with the first shot), but that doesn't mean they have the right to chase across any land they like.

          Land owners are under no compunction to participate in an ACCA and can ban shooters from their land.

          1 1 Reply
          1. Dr_N
            Reply Icon

            Re: He should go free...

            rh587

            "Wrong. Punishment for hunting on private land in France without permission is up to 1 year in prison and a €15,000 fine."

            ~

            ~

            "They may have limited rights to chase a wounded animal for the coup de gras "

            You said it yourself:

            In effect hunters can come onto your land under the pretext of chasing an already wounded animal.

            Thereby giving them access to virtually any land they so please.

            And if you argue with them? Well maybe you'll end up as one of the +50 accidents that happen every year.

            0 0 Reply
        5. Turtle
          Reply Icon

          @Dr_N Re: He should go free...

          "In France 'hunters' are allowed to chase and kill virtually anything they please, on any property."

          If, as you imply, hunters actually are allowed to chase and kill drone operators - and also, hopefully, Google Street View Car drivers, then they've hit on an ideal measure for insuring at least some bit of people's personal privacy!

          0 0 Reply
      4. James Dore
        Reply Icon
        Thumb Up

        Re: He should go free...

        In the source article on Ars Technica [1], he is quoted as saying he used No.8 bird shot in his shotgun:

        "Now, if I’d have had a .22 rifle, I should have gone to jail for that. The diameter of those things are going to come down with enough force to hurt somebody. Number 8 birdshot is not. Number 8 is the size of a pinhead. The bottom line is that it's a right to privacy issue and defending my property issue. It would have been no different had he been standing in my backyard. As Americans, we have a right to defend our rights and property."

        - So he selected ammunition specifically to avoid injury when it came down. Seems like a reasonable response.

        [1] http://arstechnica.co.uk/tech-policy/2015/07/kentucky-man-shoots-down-drone-hovering-over-his-backyard/

        25 1 Reply
      5. Brian Souder 1
        Reply Icon

        Re: He should go free...

        It would depend on the type of shell. They range from small bird shot to slugs. It said he was a skilled shooter. It could easily been contained within his yard. Was it still dangerous - yes. Every bullet has a lawyer attached. The neighbor did not seem upset though. In fact, she was saying they did it to her as well. I wonder if there are any laws they could use to investigate if these guys were recording any of the spying activities. It is kinda obvious when 4 guys are sitting around watching a drone fly over people in their back yards. There is probably some recorded footage.

        http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/07/29/kentucky-man-shoots-down-drone-hovering-over-daughters-on-back-deck/

        Merideth’s neighbor, Kim VanMeter, said she has a 16-year-old daughter who lies out in the backyard and the drone hovered over their house, “stayed for a few moments and then she finally waved and it took off.” VanMeter added that the idea of “a drone hovering with a camera is creepy and weird.”

        4 2 Reply
    2. Anonymous Coward
      Reply Icon
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: He should go free...

      "Then there's the idiots who decided to go hassle the guy with the gun"

      Ah so you think gun ownership means that your actions cannot be questioned without involving the police/being similarly armed...

      I think I might be starting to see why people dislike americans (Note this is not intended to be offensive, I like Americans what I don't like is 'murica)

      8 8 Reply
      1. Yugguy
        Reply Icon

        Re: He should go free...

        You have every "right" to go and question the owner of a gun.

        But when he blows your brains out, that right will not save your life.

        I wouldn't go and argue with an armed man. That would be idiotic.

        11 0 Reply
    3. Anonymous Coward
      Reply Icon
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: He should go free...

      "I believe that with a 6-foot tall (~2m) privacy fence there is an expectation of privacy. "

      I have a six foot "privacy" fence it my garden. I can easily see over it and into neighbor's gardens by simply standing on my patio, which is four feet off the ground.

      The "Privacy" in "privacy fence" means people on the ground looking into your property. If you want to block the view from above, use a large tent.

      I believe US courts have ruled to the effect of "yes, you have a reasonable expectation of privacy - if you're on your own property, in a covered structure, with the curtains closed."

      What if instead of a drone, it's a neighbor's teenager in a treehouse? they can see into your garden.

      You can't force the neighbor's to cut down the trees.

      A TV news helicopter hovering over the road at 1000ft is quite within their rights to film something happening in your back yard (such as a police chase), just as they are able to fly over your property without you trying to shoot them down with a shotgun/rifle/AA battery/SAM.

      1 5 Reply
    4. John Brown (no body) Silver badge
      Reply Icon
      Black Helicopters

      Re: He should go free...

      "If he loses, then I guess we can expect these intrusions at the will of the owner without regard for our safety or privacy."

      Are there no FAA regulations on flying model aircraft over populated areas, especially out of line-of-site?

      The El Reg SPB are still in limbo waiting for the FAA to give clearance to launch a model aircraft from a launch pad at ~30,000' in the middle of nowhere, well away from people.

      1 0 Reply
      1. Anonymous Coward
        Reply Icon
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: He should go free...

        If it's for recreational purposes, the only FAA regs I've heard about are the same as the Model Aircraft guidelines:

        •Fly below 400 feet and remain clear of surrounding obstacles

        •Keep the aircraft within visual line of sight at all times

        •Remain well clear of and do not interfere with manned aircraft operations

        •Don't fly within 5 miles of an airport unless you contact the airport and control tower before flying

        •Don't fly near people or stadiums

        •Don't fly an aircraft that weighs more than 55 lbs

        •Don't be careless or reckless with your unmanned aircraft – you could be fined for endangering people or other aircraft

        Numbers 2, 5, and 7 are the only ones that sound like they might be relevant here. Course, if it wasn't actually recreational, then the FAA would like to have a word with them about their unlicensed aircraft.

        http://www.faa.gov/uas/model_aircraft/

        http://www.faa.gov/news/updates/?newsId=76240

        3 0 Reply
  3. frank ly

    How about ....

    A shoulder mounted microwave gun with wideband modulation? (Or whatever is needed.)

    11 0 Reply
    1. Tridac
      Reply Icon

      Re: How about ....

      An old avionics X band radar should do that quite well at short range, or you could build a directed EMP box. Either would fry any unshielded sensitve electronics on the drone and be undetectable as well, thus avoiding arrest.

      Typical US, brute force approach, even if it does sortof get the job done :-)...

      5 0 Reply
      1. Stevie
        Reply Icon

        Re: How about ....

        An old avionics X band radar should do that quite well at short range, or you could build a directed EMP box. Either would fry any unshielded sensitve electronics on the drone and be undetectable as well, thus avoiding arrest.

        Typical US, brute force approach, even if it does sortof get the job done :-)...

        Model, please, or confess to bullshitting.

        0 0 Reply
        1. Tridac
          Reply Icon

          Re: How about ....

          No BS. Something like an old Ecko or Bendix weather radar. Iirc, around 25-50Kw pulse power, as used in a lot of older aircraft and appear regularly on fleabay. More modern airborne weather radars are probably a lot more power and at X band, the antenna size is manageable as well. You would not want to be standing on axis close to the antenna if you value your eyesight, or reproductive kit, even on the older models. You don't have to look very far on the web to find instructions. Here's one that looks like it uses a microwave oven magnetron:-

          http://fear-of-lightning.wonderhowto.com/how-to/making-electromagnetic-weapons-directed-microwave-energy-0133231/

          Thinking about it a bit more, you don't even need to do anything that complex, just jamming the telemetry link should drive the device out of control.

          The US military have been experimenting with this stuff for years. Much higher power, but they have devices that will fry / disable missiles (for example) at quite a range...

          0 0 Reply
    2. OldTimer1955
      Reply Icon

      Re: How about ....

      It was suggested to me that for low and slow drones a fishing rod and line with a small weight (rather than a hook) is sufficient: cast and entangle. Sort of like a walking stick in the spokes.

      3 0 Reply
  4. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    40mm Glock

    40 caliber surely. You wouldn't want to mess with anyone capable of carrying a 40mm gun.

    32 0 Reply
    1. Interceptor
      Reply Icon

      Re: 40mm Glock

      You don't do your gardening with your trusty Bofors AA gun on hand?

      28 0 Reply
      1. tony2heads
        Reply Icon
        Mushroom

        Re: 40mm Glock

        Bofors!

        Serious gardening needs railguns

        2 0 Reply
        1. DropBear
          Reply Icon
          Joke

          Re: 40mm Glock

          "Serious gardening needs railguns"

          My word! Are those really triffids in your garden?!?

          3 0 Reply
      2. Brian Souder 1
        Reply Icon

        Re: Bofors AA gun

        I wonder how quick you could get the weeding done with that.

        0 0 Reply

Page:

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

Forgotten password ?

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like